I'm not sure why the situation would be any different with iOS. It seems to me that the app store would still utterly dominate even if it were exposed to competition.
It also gives them the opportunity to normalize per-megacorp app stores across the board instead of them always being a weird Android thing like they would be if Meta opened an App Store on Android now.
Also running a third party store does not have to mean being able to break privacy protections. If the ecosystem relies on app inspections that much it simply needs to be secured better.
How do you secure something without inspection? We have health code inspections for restaurants, car safety and emissions inspections, IAEA inspectors visiting nuclear facilities… Should we throw all those out too? What replaces them, the goodwill and word of people?
W^X pages are one of the most widespread sources of RCE bugs, and banning them by default is a good idea.
Autocorrect and a lack of editing are a bad combo.
How likely is this when Apple aren't getting paid for apps any more? Who should pay for it?
Meta lost tens of billions in market value (and an estimated $10 billion a year in revenue) when the new Apple App Store privacy rules went into effect. That's a powerful incentive.
Also, Nintendo products and Fortnight both were in the App Store store.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.
In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture.
I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.
You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!
With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization.
But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence.
We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).
Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses...
Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
>Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
I care if my prefered mobile OS were to allow any kind of crap. How about that? Mind blown?
If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.
Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.
Why hasn't Meta had any luck doing that on Android?